Salem

Currently there is a popular method of griefing hermits. It removes their claim so their homes can be looted and destroyed without any criminal scent being left.

To counter this I propose the following alteration to the town bell

1. Offering the silver no longer removes the claim, it leaves a message at the claimstone for the player to either accept or decline. If declined nothing happens. If accepted the full amount of silver paid for the offer is given to the player leaving. The offer lasts 24 hours before running out.



A new type of waste claim is introduced (bringing the number back up to 2). It may only be built on the claim of a village you own, it also requires an item from boston (eviction notice, 1000s). The claim becomes active after 4 hours and remains active for 2 hours. During this time the claimstone may be forcibly removed by attacking it, akin to a claim that has run out of silver. The silver value of the claim and all silver within going to the bank of the claim owner if the claim is destroyed. Should this action fail a claim will be protected against further eviction attempts for 6 hours.


Destroying a claim in this manner leaves a triple strength waste scent at the claimstone location.


These changes should deal with the "belling to avoid crime" issue while still allowing the removal of claims. It gives people an incentive to move when a village makes a peaceful offer for them, it also means a player wishing to take out a hermit will still leave crime scents for breaking down defences.

1. I run a town. I have a member that's been a real jackass and I kick him out. I need to remove his claim. With this change, I can't do this now because he's going to refuse.

2. The current mechanics are a perfect valid method of removing interlopers from your area. Resources are somewhat limited in this game. I don't necessarily want to share what I'm using with others nearby.

Currently, the claim mechanics are severely out of balance. I agree with the waste scent being left. If it's a legitimate reason (such as I describe), no biggy. Odds are nobody is going to get into the town to do anything with it. If it's an attempt at "imminent domain", then it'd be the same consequences as breaking into the place.

There could be a warning period maybe, like an eviction notice. That way it gives towns a way to get rid of people, but at the same time gives a little protection from griefers. I also agree with Ether that the money left in claim should be returned to the owner's bank. I'm not sure the accept/decline would work though. There should definitely be a scent left.

JinxDevona wrote:the money left in claim should be returned to the owner's bank.

Not to the bank. That's potentially open for abuse.

MagicManICT wrote:

JinxDevona wrote:the money left in claim should be returned to the owner's bank.

Not to the bank. That's potentially open for abuse.

Ug, that's true. I don't think that way so I don't notice those things. It just sucks sometimes that we can't do simple things that make sense because some people will abuse it. That's why we can't have nice things.

Eviction notice: The player has 48hours (or longer) to GTFO before his claim is removed, he can pull out all his upkeep and the silver spent for the claim. (eg: if he have 2400 tile claim with 400s worth of upkeep he can pull out 2800s but it still costs the village 4800s to remove the claim) so it gives you some warning that you are about to be screwed but still can do nothing to stop it.

I think it'd be how willing the player is to bank their extra change. It'd cost 2:1 at the current declaim rate. There's the extra up-front costs of the town bell, upkeep for the town, and each writ of homesteading. Not bad if you make enough silver to justify the "deposit" tax.

My understanding was that a person that has a claim revoked in this way should get the silver from the claim back the next time they log in. At least, I recall reading jorb saying it was implemented. I could be completely off, though. If you do, but don't get the upkeep portion back, I could understand. I wouldn't want to invest more than about a week in my claim at a time as you never know when the proverbial **** is going to hit the air tunnel fans.

What if eviction notices simply increased the rate at which claims eat silver (let's say progressively more the longer they've been attached), but allowed silver to be taken out?

Grichmann wrote:What if eviction notices simply increased the rate at which claims eat silver (let's say progressively more the longer they've been attached), but allowed silver to be taken out?

I would bank silver in a massive claim, then try to evict myself when I need to withdraw the money.

Wouldn't you be spending more on setting up that claim and upkeep than you'd be able to bank in there?